Appeal No. 2003-0065
Application 09/491,284
Claim 4
As with claim 3, we conclude that Fukuoka cures the
deficiencies in the rejection of parent claim 1.
Appellants argue Brezoczky does not teach or suggest that
the pad has a parabolic shape (Br12). It is argued that the
passage at col. 10, lines 30-32, of Fukuoka refers to the leading
edge of slider 1, not the bottom surface (BR12). Furthermore, it
is argued, if Brezoczky was modified so that the slider body had
a parabolic shape it is unclear how read/write head 17 could be
properly formed on surface 58 which would be curved (Br12).
Fukuoka teaches that one end portion of the slider in Fig. 7
has an outer shape defined by part of a parabola, a circle, or an
oval (col. 10, lines 30-32). We interpret this to refer to the
outer shape of the bottom surface since the description
immediately follows the description of Fig. 6 which states that
the surface has a circular or oval outer shape and since what is
being discussed is the shape of the bottom surface. Moreover,
Fig. 7 clearly shows a surface which can be described as an
"outer shape" defined by "part of" a parabola, a circle, or an
oval. Thus, Fukuoka teaches a parabolic-shaped contact surface.
It would have been obvious to modify the slider in Brezoczky to
have a parabolic shape in view of Fukuoka or, alternatively, for
the entire slider in Fukuoka to have a parabolic shape in view of
the teaching in Brezoczky that the slider and pad can have a
- 13 -
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007